Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreA batch of appeals arose from conflicting orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal on how far back "arrears" of disability pension could be paid to ex-servicemen. In the lead case, an Indian Air Force serviceman discharged in 2008 with a service-related disability was later granted "broad banding" (an upward revision) of his disability pension by the Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Union of India v. Ram Avtar. The Union of India challenged Tribunal orders that awarded arrears without any three-year cut-off, while the ex-servicemen, in their own appeals, wanted arrears from their actual date of discharge rather than a restricted period.
The Court held that disability pension is a vested, property-like right (protected under Article 300A) and not a bounty, so once judicially and administratively affirmed, it cannot be curtailed by invoking limitation, delay or laches. It noted that the Union of India itself had, through government orders (notably one dated 18.04.2016), made a conscious policy decision to pay such arrears from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, and could not later resile from that commitment. The right to claim broad banding only crystallised on 10.12.2014 (the date of the Ram Avtar judgment, which operated in rem), so claims filed thereafter could not be treated as time-barred. Consequently, the Union of India's appeals were dismissed, and the ex-servicemen's appeals were allowed, restoring their entitlement to arrears from 01.01.1996/01.01.2006 with 6% annual interest.
Once a pension right is confirmed by law or a binding court judgment, the government cannot restrict payment of past dues merely by citing limitation or delay, especially where it has already committed in policy to a specific effective date: pensionary benefits, including for service-related disability, are treated as protected property rights, not discretionary favours.
